Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

The Last Taboo.

All political and economic systems will fail unless this problem is addressed. We encourage people to conserve and have a low carbon footprint. But those resources will just be negated by population growth.

At present, we still control our population via overuse of resources, war and the misery of poverty and disease. Capitalism and socialism both have this situation, the endless political debates are pretty meaningless until this issue is addressed.

We regulate who can drive, who can immigrate, what drugs one can take, who you can have sex with, what guns you can own, how much wealth must go to the government. But we can't regulate population growth? How insane society is.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

It is pretty close to what I have been saying for several years. The fact of the matter is that the population of the Earth has doubled in my life time. This cuts across all social and religious boundaries, so it is not just one group of people How is this single fact not really fucking creepy?

Now I don't really know if it is all that viable to say that on some certain date in the past, the environmental load of humans on the planet passed the capacity of the Earth to hold us. Realistically, each resource which we use probably has a different point in time when we started using too damned much of that specific item and they do not all line up. Even so, would we be having the same discussions on such matters as global warming and the spread of exciting diseases if there were half as many people in the world as there are today?

As an example, it might be somewhat useful to check some old dried out oil fields to see what has happened since we abandoned them like 75 years ago. Not to find out if we can suck them even drier with modern technology but to see what the geological structures have trapped since they were abandoned.

That would serve as at least a ball park indication of just how much oil we can actually take out of the ground at a really sustainable level. Without actually doing those tests, I am thinking that the actual amount is a drop in the bucket compared to what we are pulling out now.

Don't get me wrong here, I am all for people thinking of solutions to our current slate of problems. However, population is the one that has quite a bit of potential to address many of the others.

Just for point of discussion, let me run with the energy economy. Let's say that if we go all out to develop a new energy paradigm, then we can supply say 30% of our current needs. How does that shape up if we reduce our population by some arbitrary amount?

There is another concern here. We don't want to do this too fast though. Today, China is actively trying to reduce it's population quite rapidly. As much as they can enforce matters, they are trying to force a one child per couple solution. However, it will not be too many decades before the current crop of breeders are too old to support themselves anymore. Then they will become dependent on whatever passes for social security over there.

I would bet that if China is even modestly successful with the current plan, they will find that they have created a stinking huge problem with too few workers to support the throngs of old people.

Good question Kap. As I read the OP, he means the “royal we”. Probably this involves the people who smugly drive hybrid cars and act like they are better than the rest of us. Well, they need like 10 pounds of nickle for every battery they use.

While Hybrid cars are still kind of new, they use the same batteries as cell phones. Those batteries have to be replaced every so often. Of course many people don't ever see the replacement of a cell phone battery due to the fact that many providers hand out free replacement phones every couple of years. Still, those of us who have used a phone until the battery was no more know that they don't last much longer than a couple of years anyway.

I wonder if those same smug people have any idea what nickle mining is doing to the so-called unspoiled wilderness in Canada?

Population. When I crammed for my recent exams from demography, I learned the population ratio for developed and undeveloped nations. Since 1900's, population in developed nations rounded itself from about 1 billion to 2 billions. But in developing countries the population went from one to more than 4 billions. We, europeans and americans aren't that overpopulated. Third world is.

The evil we do is wasting resources, we usurp almost all of them globally and then waste them on crap that we don't need and which we throw away and the waste is dumped in developing countries. In developing countries the only wealth they ever had or have, are children. This is a cultural tradition that persists even if the life standard goes up, that causes the population explosion.

The problem is, that the world cares only about market, not about the people. Market as we understand is making worthless money out of nothing and ransoming irreplaceable resources for it. It's an evil system that will drive this world to the edge of destruction. The selfishness of this system is reflected in the fact, that universal education, shelter, food and healthcare is not provided by any government in the world, although it's the first and most important duty of any government. And so people make more and more children to secure them in old age instead.

The key to survival is in slowing down the economy, gradually and carefully, but strictly. It is nonsense to work all workdays, full time, or on shifts. The economy is fueled by consumption, and consumption is caused mainly by artificial demand, and artificial demand is caused by the marketing designers who need to earn money. And without money you're a second class citizen. (or tenth) That's bad, being forced to make money in the worst possible way by the necessity to survive and pay bills.

I'm all for it, but it would seem that any attempt to do so would fly in the face of your stated beliefs so.....what about it?

Which is what?

If I am being irrational or inconsistent, please let me know about what an why.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Population. When I crammed for my recent exams from demography, I learned the population ratio for developed and undeveloped nations. Since 1900's, population in developed nations rounded itself from about 1 billion to 2 billions. But in developing countries the population went from one to more than 4 billions. We, europeans and americans aren't that overpopulated. Third world is.

In the so called 'Western world', we still have problems with poverty, lack of resources, lack of natural habitats, bankrupt governments, etc... The only thing we have over the third world is a lower birth rate. But then this is negated by immigration. Mexico is able to maintain a high birth rate because the USA acts a pressure release for a society where children don't receive much of an education is science and the religion teaches people their duty to god is to reproduce, birth control is a sin and the invisible man will supposedly take care of their children.

Luminon wrote:

The evil we do is wasting resources, we usurp almost all of them globally and then waste them on crap that we don't need and which we throw away and the waste is dumped in developing countries. In developing countries the only wealth they ever had or have, are children. This is a cultural tradition that persists even if the life standard goes up, that causes the population explosion.

I agree we are inefficient with natural resource usage. However, I don't think it makes a difference. The resources would just be used by someone else to increase the population even more. It's like if I run the treadmill faster, I still don't go anywhere because the treadmill just speeds up.

Luminon wrote:

The problem is, that the world cares only about market, not about the people. Market as we understand is making worthless money out of nothing and ransoming irreplaceable resources for it. It's an evil system that will drive this world to the edge of destruction. The selfishness of this system is reflected in the fact, that universal education, shelter, food and healthcare is not provided by any government in the world, although it's the first and most important duty of any government. And so people make more and more children to secure them in old age instead.

How do you stop people from being selfish? Guilt and shame? Those haven't worked too well.

Governments can't provide expensive healthcare and other benefits for population with uncontrolled growth, they just go bankrupt. Disease and hunger are methods of population control.

The problem is we don't admit that we are all selfish. People join a religion, become a human rights advocate, support welfare benefits without conditions. Then they believe they are morally superior, even though there is no evidence this helps.

How about dumping the whole concept of morality and then making the pursuit of happiness a cooperative goal? Then population control can be exchanged for benefits and access to resources.

Luminon wrote:

The key to survival is in slowing down the economy, gradually and carefully, but strictly. It is nonsense to work all workdays, full time, or on shifts. The economy is fueled by consumption, and consumption is caused mainly by artificial demand, and artificial demand is caused by the marketing designers who need to earn money. And without money you're a second class citizen. (or tenth) That's bad, being forced to make money in the worst possible way by the necessity to survive and pay bills.

But competition in the reproduction arena is going to lead competition in other areas such as economic and military. Because we don't control population through rational means, there is going to be intense competition in the world.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Good question Kap. As I read the OP, he means the “royal we”. Probably this involves the people who smugly drive hybrid cars and act like they are better than the rest of us. Well, they need like 10 pounds of nickle for every battery they use.

While Hybrid cars are still kind of new, they use the same batteries as cell phones. Those batteries have to be replaced every so often. Of course many people don't ever see the replacement of a cell phone battery due to the fact that many providers hand out free replacement phones every couple of years. Still, those of us who have used a phone until the battery was no more know that they don't last much longer than a couple of years anyway.

I wonder if those same smug people have any idea what nickle mining is doing to the so-called unspoiled wilderness in Canada?

Adding to that nickel tetracarbonyl as one of the intermediates of nickel processing- aka "Liquid Death"

And yeah... where does that electricity powering most hybrid vehicles come from? (Specifically- how is it produced?) Hint: more likely than not, it isn't "green"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

How do you stop people from being selfish? Guilt and shame? Those haven't worked too well.

Granted. Some tools are known to be ineffective. So we need to consider other tools and see what shakes out.

EXC wrote:

Governments can't provide expensive healthcare and other benefits for population with uncontrolled growth, they just go bankrupt. Disease and hunger are methods of population control.

OK, I see a problem here. Disease and hunger are not working out for us really well either. The very places where birth rates are the highest are those where people are most sick and hungry. However, those are actually two things. Let me consider them separately.

Hunger does not seem to be working. However, given the real picture across cultural lines, prosperity does seem to have a large impact on the birth rate. So if we could find a way to use that as a tool, we might have more success.

However, that could easily backfire if we just send lots of food to the people who are the most hungry. Really, as much as I dislike dictators, Col. Mengistu had the right idea when he used the donations from Live Aid to ship resources around Ethiopia to encourage people to move to the places where the food was going. The alternative of just dumping resources where the people in the worst shape are just encourages more irresponsible reproduction.

Honestly, that practice in the years following world war 2 is a huge part of the population bomb. You remember the unicef boxes that we all carried at halloween? All of those coins were used to provide vaccinations against childhood diseases in the third world. However, due in no small part to the role of the RC church, little if any money was spent to educate those same people about how if most of your children would live, then there was no reason to have 12 kids.

How forward thinking of the RC church.

Which brings me to disease. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to limit the spread of the very diseases which are known to help keep population in check. Those diseases which are still rampant are not effective population controls.

In all honesty, if we are going to use disease as a check on population, withdrawing the international effort to combat disease needs to happen. In all honesty though, given the current scope of the issue at hand, we would probably have to reintroduce those and other diseases to see the needed results.

A quarter in the unicef box might buy a petri dish worth of bubonic plague. A few dozen of those placed up river from some region that needs to have it's population brutally managed would see an 80% reduction of that population in perhaps 5 years. After that, the population density would be reduced to such levels where the disease would no longer spread effectively.

I am not saying that we should. However, if less dramatic interventions can work today but are not implemented, what becomes thinkable several decades out when the situation is far worse?

EXC wrote:

How about dumping the whole concept of morality and then making the pursuit of happiness a cooperative goal? Then population control can be exchanged for benefits and access to resources.

Well, as I noted above, what we don't do today will probably have us doing far worse half a century or so from now. If we could use the tools which are available to us now to reduce world population to, say 1950 level, then we would be in a much better place as far as working to develop the third world.

Seriously, it would be much easier to, for example, bring electricity into small towns of say 10,000 than to electrify refugee camps with the population of small cities. Then we could drill fewer wells to provide more safe water per capita to fewer total people, build better hospitals and so on.

When the people of Ethopia can sit on their asses eating microwave popcorn and watch bay watch reruns, I would bet that they will have a birth rate more in line with the current developed world.

I'm all for it, but it would seem that any attempt to do so would fly in the face of your stated beliefs so.....what about it?

Which is what?

If I am being irrational or inconsistent, please let me know about what an why.

Forcible reduction of population has at least two choices, one of which is directly opposite to libertarian views. The other is opposite humanitarian views, but who cares?

1. Force population reduction through forced birth control. Drag women into clinics - perhaps against their will - and give them depo provera shots every three months. Force abortions on the ones who have more than one child. Force sterilization of both men and women.

Develop a disease that affects only humans, not primates or other mammals, that reduces fertility to say, 10% are fertile. Similar to forced birth control or sterilization but without having to drag them into a facility.

Rather against libertarian views, but it will work eventually as this will force down the birth rate.

2. Unleash plagues like AiGS said. Doesn't have to be bubonic, could be smallpox (30% death rate), we could stop sending AIDs drugs (100% eventually), measles (2% in the US, 311,000 deaths due to measles in Africa in 2002), and so on. Don't send aid to the survivors. Note: this includes the industrialized countries as the plagues spread. And they will spread. No where in the world is isolated anymore.

3. Do nothing. Global warming and economic collapse will take care of the problem for you.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

In the so called 'Western world', we still have problems with poverty, lack of resources, lack of natural habitats, bankrupt governments, etc... The only thing we have over the third world is a lower birth rate. But then this is negated by immigration. Mexico is able to maintain a high birth rate because the USA acts a pressure release for a society where children don't receive much of an education is science and the religion teaches people their duty to god is to reproduce, birth control is a sin and the invisible man will supposedly take care of their children.

OK, as you say, there's no escape from these problems, they're global. It's funny how people behave according to advice from bronze age, when global population was about, I don't know, 200 millions.

EXC wrote:

I agree we are inefficient with natural resource usage. However, I don't think it makes a difference. The resources would just be used by someone else to increase the population even more. It's like if I run the treadmill faster, I still don't go anywhere because the treadmill just speeds up.

The resources are not used to increase population! We take 80% of Third world's resources and they multiply like crazy. No, the resources are either thrown away, or used to satisfy artificial demand (which brings no quality of life whatsoever) and then thrown away. In USA, 50% of all food is wasted. In western Europe it's 30-50%, in other developed states 30%. Yes, the resources would be used by someone else, by someone to whom they rightfully belong! You know the car from lending office effect? If something is not yours, you waste it like crazy, but if something is yours, you watch over it and spare it carefully. And I'm not pulling this knowledge out of my ass, I had marketing and economy classes. On big scale, this was called patriotism, before Americans misused that word.

EXC wrote:

How do you stop people from being selfish? Guilt and shame? Those haven't worked too well.

Oh, people are so adaptable. They change their behavior all the time, this is why marketing and media works. If something is cheaper they buy like crazy, if it's expensive, they complain in pubs and tighten their belts.This is very bad when there are selfish people in government and media, but it also gives hope, because it's a redeeming quality. With proper marketing, if people can be manipulated into acting stupidly and selfishly, then they can be just as easily manipulated to do the right things and live correctly. There are powerful ideals that will help it.

EXC wrote:

Governments can't provide expensive healthcare and other benefits for population with uncontrolled growth, they just go bankrupt. Disease and hunger are methods of population control.

Governments obviously can't provide expensive healthcare, because they provide it as much expensive as they can, and then share profits with pharmacologic corporations and everyone that knows dirt about them. In my country 20% of state budget goes to private hands.

No offense, but one thing really I don't like about you, is how immature your opinions are. (and I don't know your age) If you ever saw any statistics, you would know that disease and hunger don't decrease population effectively. Areas of the world with most disease and hunger are the most populated and most out of control. And these conditions produce extremism, and even poor people can get a makeshift nuke. This is not a world worthy of living in. I have a grandma who experienced WW2 right here, with Germans and Russians, hunger, bombs and machineguns. If you like hunger and diseases so much, go and try some, see how you will like it. That is what I mean by immature.

EXC wrote:

The problem is we don't admit that we are all selfish. People join a religion, become a human rights advocate, support welfare benefits without conditions. Then they believe they are morally superior, even though there is no evidence this helps.

How about dumping the whole concept of morality and then making the pursuit of happiness a cooperative goal? Then population control can be exchanged for benefits and access to resources.

If selfishness is a common denominator, then we can just as well forget it. Black is white, up is down, unselfish is selfish, it's just playing with words. If there is a special kind of selfishness that is unselfish, (the charity and human rights stuff) then we can just call it unselfishness, FFS. Is it so selfish wanting to have a lovely global village? Pursuit of happiness is a good thing, if you (or rather I) define what is happiness and how to get it. It must be done scientifically. It is proven that consumerism does not bring happiness, and yet our society is all based on it.

EXC wrote:

But competition in the reproduction arena is going to lead competition in other areas such as economic and military. Because we don't control population through rational means, there is going to be intense competition in the world.

There ALREADY is competition in the world! Both economic and military. There is in fact global economic war. With invention of nuclear bomb, wars were restricted on lesser scale, but there is no such restriction on economic warfare. Which is very, very bad.

Fuck competition! Leave it up to beefy jocks on football field. Who wants competition? Only winners, and for each winner there is a plenty of losers. That's a lousy deal, because winners are always the same, it's the self-appointed elite that controls the competition and never loses. In economy there is no such thing as healthy competition or free market. That is how capitalism comes to end today, wealth gets accumulated in few selfish hands and never gets into circulation anymore. But there's an alternative. Cooperation! In cooperation everybody wins. Cooperation is fine, because we treat each other rationally and non-destructively. Cooperation is an art and there's a whole book about it.

Yes, the resources would be used by someone else, by someone to whom they rightfully belong!

And who decides what is right? Moralizing does no good. If many third world countries had more cheap oil, they'd use it to grow more food and move the food into crowded cities. If many men and women still have a large number of children, do the math, how does the population not increase again until a Malthusian disaster limits the growth.

Luminon wrote:

This is very bad when there are selfish people in government and media, but it also gives hope, because it's a redeeming quality.

Can you provide a historical example of anyone that was not selfish? Perhaps if we dumped the concept of morality and moral superiority, government could be designed to maximize our common good instead of the good of the politicians.

Luminon wrote:

No offense, but one thing really I don't like about you, is how immature your opinions are. (and I don't know your age) If you ever saw any statistics, you would know that disease and hunger don't decrease population effectively. Areas of the world with most disease and hunger are the most populated and most out of control.

Human misery and high birthrates go hand in hand. Because if people don't limit the population growth by other means nature will. If there is high birtrates, what else but a Malthusian check will limit growth?

Luminon wrote:

And these conditions produce extremism, and even poor people can get a makeshift nuke. This is not a world worthy of living in. I have a grandma who experienced WW2 right here, with Germans and Russians, hunger, bombs and machineguns. If you like hunger and diseases so much, go and try some, see how you will like it. That is what I mean by immature.

Because the Germans need more living space for their population. The Slavic people were in their way.

Am I arguing in favor of war, disease and poverty? I'm saying this is the alternative means of population control if we don't have rational controls which may involve limiting the birth rates of people that would otherwise have many children.

Luminon wrote:

Fuck competition!

Talk about immature. You don't like the world as it is, so you invent a fantasy world where everyone can have all the welfare benefits for their survival and no restriction on how many children they can burden the welfare system with.

Competition is in our DNA, this is how life evolved. We have competition in the reproductive arena, this is going to leak over into competition for resources, economic competition and military. This is how the world is. I think it immature to invent a alternate fantasy world where everyone can have a free lunch.

Luminon wrote:

Cooperation! In cooperation everybody wins. Cooperation is fine, because we treat each other rationally and non-destructively. Cooperation is an art and there's a whole book about it.

OK then, can there be international cooperation to limit population growth by means other than poverty, war and disease? Can it be done with human reason and not letting nature take it's course to reduce population imbalances?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Hunger and disease increase the birth rate - people have more children in an effort to increase the chance that some will survive to care for them in their old age, and work the farm, etc.

I think the go hand in hand in a vicious cycle. But I think birth rate is mainly a biological imperative, but culture plays an important role.

What hunger - more properly, starvation and malnutrition - and disease do directly is increase the death rate, which seems to be easily overtaken by the increased birth rate as people compensate.

So the net effect of 'hunger and disease' is to produce a poverty stricken, unhealthy society.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Reducing hunger and disease is one of the best ways to reduce the birth rate, along with empowering women so they don't have to give in to their mate's demands for sex and children.

For a while it may reduce, but are women then going to decide to only have 2 children? Aren't there going to be some that have 10 or more babies because their religion tells them to or they just want that many? Then their daughters have the same values. So population just increases until a Malthusian crisis takes it's course. It's a treadmill we can't get off of with just welfare benefits.

But aren't cultures that don't empower women going to be more prevalent because they have a higher birthrate? So unless there is a global government to enforce female empowerment, these non-empowerment cultures will be way more populated and in time dominate the others.

BobSpence1 wrote:

in

Next most effective might be to nuke the Catholic Church .....

But every sperm is sacred.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Reducing hunger and disease is one of the best ways to reduce the birth rate, along with empowering women so they don't have to give in to their mate's demands for sex and children.

For a while it may reduce, but are women then going to decide to only have 2 children? Aren't there going to be some that have 10 or more babies because their religion tells them to or they just want that many? Then their daughters have the same values. So population just increases until a Malthusian crisis takes it's course. It's a treadmill we can't get off of with just welfare benefits.

But aren't cultures that don't empower women going to be more prevalent because they have a higher birthrate? So unless there is a global government to enforce female empowerment, these non-empowerment cultures will be way more populated and in time dominate the others.

The evidence is very strong from both 'primitive' cultures and 'advanced' cultures that the effect persists - after all, carrying and giving birth to a child, is not usually a particular pleasant experience for the woman.

Add to that the cost of raising and educating a child, there are reasons why most women would not have any natural urge for more kids in such societies. Of course you are right that religious imperatives can counteract this, and are a real problem, as I implied with my reference to the Catholic Church. And of course they are not the only religion pushing against any effective form of fertility control.

There are now many countries where the birth rate is below replacement, and Western Europe has been getting concerned about it for quite a while. So the evidence is that high standards of living, security, education all combine to reduce the imperative to reproduce, so I think you are wrong in your analysis that it will inevitably rise again.

Of course, if other events lead to collapse of those societies, all bets are off in any analysis of long term trends. IOW, in the longest term, all kinds of good and bad things are possible.

Even in my country, Australia, there are concerns about low birth-rate, and some politicians are arguing we need to boost immigration to compensate, and also talking about 'baby bonuses' to encourage us to have more kids. We are around 1.8 per woman. We are one of the more secular societies, like many Western European nations, so that may be part of the reason.

I'm all for it, but it would seem that any attempt to do so would fly in the face of your stated beliefs so.....what about it?

Which is what?

If I am being irrational or inconsistent, please let me know about what an why.

Forcible reduction of population has at least two choices, one of which is directly opposite to libertarian views. The other is opposite humanitarian views, but who cares?

1. Force population reduction through forced birth control. Drag women into clinics - perhaps against their will - and give them depo provera shots every three months. Force abortions on the ones who have more than one child. Force sterilization of both men and women.

Develop a disease that affects only humans, not primates or other mammals, that reduces fertility to say, 10% are fertile. Similar to forced birth control or sterilization but without having to drag them into a facility.

Rather against libertarian views, but it will work eventually as this will force down the birth rate.

2. Unleash plagues like AiGS said. Doesn't have to be bubonic, could be smallpox (30% death rate), we could stop sending AIDs drugs (100% eventually), measles (2% in the US, 311,000 deaths due to measles in Africa in 2002), and so on. Don't send aid to the survivors. Note: this includes the industrialized countries as the plagues spread. And they will spread. No where in the world is isolated anymore.

3. Do nothing. Global warming and economic collapse will take care of the problem for you.

4. Send several hundred megatons of metal as a bolide hurling towards Earth, observe the initial impact kicking up quite a bit of dust into the upper levels of the atmosphere, wait a week or so, notice a sudden 30-40°F drop in temperature, listen to radio broadcasts of mass civil disorder and panic alongside a complete halt on global agriculture, (few months in) shoot several home invaders trying to raid whatever food you have left, hear rumors of a semi-secret coalition to keep civilization alive in fission-/fusion-powered "bunker cities", (and finally) fondly remember the days when 99.9% of the human race was still alive and it wasn't a daily struggle to keep your belly from being completely empty.

There is really NO way around ice age-causing events, because modern civilization still requires a somewhat temperate climate in order to remain functional. #3- global warming and "economic collapse" doesn't do a whole lot to populations that are essentially composed of subsistence farmers. And then there's...

5. Continue keeping developing nations in the dark with regards to everything. Allowing them to self-destruct with ruthless civil warswhile carefully keeping an eye out for potential development of nuclear arsenals, and bury anyone who tries to go nuclear. (Basically what Nato countries have been doing since the industrial revolution)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Japan, Western Europe, Australia, and many other countries are either in decline in birth rate, are being stabilized by emigrant populations, or both. In the United States, without certain ethnic bases providing us a reproduction rate above average, it'd be surprising if we even replaced the population anymore (i.e., 2 kids per reproducing couple right now it's like 2.1).

Furthermore, you refuse to look to the one factor that actually matters, the one factor that has ALWAYS averted your paranoid Malthusian fears. Technology.

Malthus had an argument that actually made complete sense back in the 1800s:

Quote:

Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist

That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,

That the superior power of population it repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice

His argument made perfect sense when examining the causes of famine and decline in Rome, which depended heavily on the grain of Egypt. Or any other ancient example.

However, technology (namely those things developed after Malthus croaked) has allowed us to not only completely avoid the population being linked to food output (our food output can and does easily exceed our population in the developed world), our population has even noticeably decreased birth-rate wise in times of greater food production. In the past century, birth and death rates had more to do with flu (NOT a famine), war veterans (NOT tied to "misery and vice&quot and other factors, with notable exceptions like the Dust Bowl.

If you argue our technology has plateaued, I point to the creation of the first synthetic cell, or the massive potential of the now comparatively time-tested genetic engineering of plants.

And even this is all prologue to how dastardly of a notion it is to limit birth. I don't even want to contemplate on who gets to reproduce, and who doesn't. Do you want to make that decision? Do you want to let others make that decision? I don't.

I think the more pertinent question is not can we sustain more people on this planet? but, can the racists in our world sustain the thought of a mixed race planet?

Human misery and high birthrates go hand in hand. Because if people don't limit the population growth by other means nature will. If there is high birtrates, what else but a Malthusian check will limit growth?

Current evidence indicates that as the standard of living of societies increase, fertility rates decrease. The worldwide average fertility rate has been decreasing for some time now, and in many places the fertility rates are below replacement. So to answer your question, voluntary reduction in fertility rates as the worldwide standard of living improves will limit growth. The only issue here is determining whether or not the population will go too high before that happens.

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.

Human misery and high birthrates go hand in hand. Because if people don't limit the population growth by other means nature will. If there is high birtrates, what else but a Malthusian check will limit growth?

Current evidence indicates that as the standard of living of societies increase, fertility rates decrease. The worldwide average fertility rate has been decreasing for some time now, and in many places the fertility rates are below replacement. So to answer your question, voluntary reduction in fertility rates as the worldwide standard of living improves will limit growth. The only issue here is determining whether or not the population will go too high before that happens.

Precisely. And also, your last possibility has the caveat that it would be regional. That is, overpopulation in some regions, not all. Wild swings in high birth/death rates eventually gives way to stable, low birth and death rates, spurned by... technology. Technology is what leads to raising the standard of living.

Yes.

Malthus had an argument that actually made complete sense back in the 1800s:

A man named "Anton LaVey" made an even better argument in the 20th century:

Quote:

There can be no more myth of “equality” for all—it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without interference from apologists for incompetence. No one should be protected from the effects of (their) own stupidity.

Because, well, as any medical dictionary can easily prove, we aren't all "(pro)created equally". Many humans are born (or raised, in many cases) innately inferior to their cousins.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Yes.

I'll start with "anyone with an IQ above 115", and work from there.

Would it be unfair to call you an "anti-humanist?" Lol. I don't know, there's not much to discuss with such clear rancor against your own species Unless you're trolling, in which case... /sarcastic clap.

Yes.

I'll start with "anyone with an IQ above 115", and work from there.

Would it be unfair to call you an "anti-humanist?" Lol. I don't know, there's not much to discuss with such clear rancor against your own species Unless you're trolling, in which case... /sarcastic clap.

I usually limit my trolling to Iwbiek, and one or two other less-than-rational 'rational responders'. However in this case... I do genuinely believe what I type.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

really? that was trolling? i thought trolling generally showed much less emotion. btw, i'm still waiting for concrete examples of my "idealism" and "irrationality," you blinkered, pinheaded monkey-fucker. so far, "less-than-rational" seems for you to mean "not swallowing kapkao's bullshit."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

1. Force population reduction through forced birth control. Drag women into clinics - perhaps against their will - and give them depo provera shots every three months. Force abortions on the ones who have more than one child. Force sterilization of both men and women.

And why is it that people have no problem with forcing people to pay taxes as part of their civil responsibility, yet they recoil at the though of using force when it comes to responsible reproduccion. Why is this such a sacred and private matter? Yet the raising the offspring of this private decision then becomes a public responsibility. And I'm the one who is inconsistent and irrational???

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

There are now many countries where the birth rate is below replacement, and Western Europe has been getting concerned about it for quite a while. So the evidence is that high standards of living, security, education all combine to reduce the imperative to reproduce, so I think you are wrong in your analysis that it will inevitably rise again.

Or perhaps it's the other way around, women start having fewer babies and then society can afford all the welfare benefits. I think there may be a cause and effect reversal, because countries with high birthrates could never finance welfare benefits anyways.

But what's happening is low birthrate and secularization is negated by immigration from Muslim societies. So Europe will again have the problems of overpopulation leading to war, poverty, racism, genocide, environmental damage that has plagued Europe for millenniums. The wars will just be Sunni vs. Shite instead of Chrisitan vs. Jew.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even in my country, Australia, there are concerns about low birth-rate, and some politicians are arguing we need to boost immigration to compensate

Get out your prayer rug, the Islamification of your country has begun.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

1. Force population reduction through forced birth control. Drag women into clinics - perhaps against their will - and give them depo provera shots every three months. Force abortions on the ones who have more than one child. Force sterilization of both men and women.

And why is it that people have no problem with forcing people to pay taxes as part of their civil responsibility, yet they recoil at the though of using force when it comes to responsible reproduccion. Why is this such a sacred and private matter? Yet the raising the offspring of this private decision then becomes a public responsibility. And I'm the one who is inconsistent and irrational???

Nah, nah, nah. I was just pointing out if you have a problem with being forced to do anything - such as paying taxes - how is forcing your reproductive views on someone else any less egregious?

We weren't talking about my views and how this violated them or not. We were talking about your views.

I have no problem with forcing reproductive sterilization on some people. But I believe realistically it would shortly become a shouting match over who "deserves" to be sterilized and who doesn't. I would prefer the option of a virus that reduces the population randomly. Nasty, but at least it is random and not determined by some religious nut.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

I have no problem with forcing reproductive sterilization on some people. But I believe realistically it would shortly become a shouting match over who "deserves" to be sterilized and who doesn't. I would prefer the option of a virus that reduces the population randomly. Nasty, but at least it is random and not determined by some religious nut.

I have no problem with forcing reproductive sterilization on some people. But I believe realistically it would shortly become a shouting match over who "deserves" to be sterilized and who doesn't. I would prefer the option of a virus that reduces the population randomly. Nasty, but at least it is random and not determined by some religious nut.

Wow, I never saw that coming !

There are some people who should never become parents. Or they should never have had children. The problem is we would never agree on who those people are. One of the theist posters here said it was terrible I raised my children as atheists and I was a bad parent. So I would prefer random over some dope like that making the decisions.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

There are now many countries where the birth rate is below replacement, and Western Europe has been getting concerned about it for quite a while. So the evidence is that high standards of living, security, education all combine to reduce the imperative to reproduce, so I think you are wrong in your analysis that it will inevitably rise again.

Or perhaps it's the other way around, women start having fewer babies and then society can afford all the welfare benefits. I think there may be a cause and effect reversal, because countries with high birthrates could never finance welfare benefits anyways.

Sure, there is an incentive to keep it low, so long as mortality is low, no matter what started the trend to lower birth-rate in the first place. What you just proposed just further contradicts your argument about the 'inevitable' tendency to trend to higher birth-rates.

Quote:

But what's happening is low birthrate and secularization is negated by immigration from Muslim societies. So Europe will again have the problems of overpopulation leading to war, poverty, racism, genocide, environmental damage that has plagued Europe for millenniums. The wars will just be Sunni vs. Shite instead of Chrisitan vs. Jew.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Even in my country, Australia, there are concerns about low birth-rate, and some politicians are arguing we need to boost immigration to compensate

Get out your prayer rug, the Islamification of your country has begun.

I agree Islam is worry - I have a bunch of them living within a few minutes walk of where I live, so you ain't telling me anything. Disconcerting to encounter burkhas at the local supermarket...

But this is a separate issue, although it further supports the idea that it takes some external factor like a religious dogma, especially one that dis-empowers women in a big way, to push birth-rates up in an otherwise relatively prosperous society.

It is a natural evolutionary stable strategy - go for high birth-rates when death-rates are high, low birth-rates when all the kids survive.

Part of the problem at the moment, is that the massive decrease in death-rates has happened so fast in the generational sense that we seem to be headed to hit unsustainable world population levels before it stabilizes.

I'm all for it, but it would seem that any attempt to do so would fly in the face of your stated beliefs so.....what about it?

Which is what?

If I am being irrational or inconsistent, please let me know about what an why.

As your title implies, regulating who can have children and how many is a touchy subject. As someone who routinely rails against government involvement in the economy I would think the state imposing standards on reproduction would be even more offensive.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

I'm not really a conspiracy type but I do enjoy comming up with fun ones. Scientists have already discovered how to prolong life, and some of them live among us, a hero makes this discovery while doing some random research and sets out to find the truth. During his search he reveals identities of importand behind the scenes people and sets out to fix things. In the end he must decide wether to expose this to the world or destroy every trace of it. Yes I think it would make a cool original movie though I only have the main plot worked out as you can see, lol.

Only mildly related but, imagine with the population growth we already have coupled with a discovery that could make people live say, an extra hundred years or something... Danger Will Robinson, Danger.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin

really? that was trolling? i thought trolling generally showed much less emotion. btw, i'm still waiting for concrete examples of my "idealism" and "irrationality," you blinkered, pinheaded monkey-fucker. so far, "less-than-rational" seems for you to mean "not swallowing kapkao's bullshit."

Btw: I really don't give a flying fuck if you "swallow my bullshit" or not; I like torturing you with my words. You, of course, allow me to rent out room in your head- without me even trying. That's all, really.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

really? that was trolling? i thought trolling generally showed much less emotion. btw, i'm still waiting for concrete examples of my "idealism" and "irrationality," you blinkered, pinheaded monkey-fucker. so far, "less-than-rational" seems for you to mean "not swallowing kapkao's bullshit."

Btw: I really don't give a flying fuck if you "swallow my bullshit" or not; I like torturing you with my words. You, of course, allow me to rent out room in your head- without me even trying. That's all, really.

my head? not even close. believe it or not, dipshit, i never fire so much as a single neuron on your behalf when i'm away from these boards. i might grant you a packed timeshare in my fingertips.

and just how the fuck does "torture" work if the "victim" feels neither pain nor even mild distress?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Children as life wreckers ? Not hardly. Mine are kept handcuffed to a pipe in the crawl space under my house. When I turn up the volume really loud on the television set I can barely hear their screams.

Children as life wreckers ? Not hardly. Mine are kept handcuffed to a pipe in the crawl space under my house. When I turn up the volume really loud on the television set I can barely hear their screams.

As your title implies, regulating who can have children and how many is a touchy subject. As someone who routinely rails against government involvement in the economy I would think the state imposing standards on reproduction would be even more offensive.

What I find offensive about the leftist point of view of who should be responsible. It seems people of your political persuasion put all responsibility to fix societies problems on the backs of tax payers. All problems can be solved by increasing the size of the welfare state and the taxes to pay for it.

My view is that all relationships are based on give and take. If their is an imbalance between givers and takers as would occur under a welfare state, this arrangement is unsustainable. You're asking people to work for free so others can have stuff for free.

The socialist arrangement is like having a wife that tell you that you must pay all bills but she can fuck other men any you must pay for them. You either have a 50/50 give and take marriage or you get a divorce.

So I think with society, you either tell everyone they are on their own or you have enforced contracts to give and get something. I don't see why you find this irrational, you don't work for free and you don't pay for merchandise you never receive. So fine, have a socialist coop where you all pay each others medical bills. Just don't force me to do anything and I won't force you.

But if people want to force me to pay for their children, why can't I have a say in who, when and how many? Otherwise, let's not have any government.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen